Fuck Your Feelings: On Being Mean

I’ll cut to the chase – I saw a conversation on Facebook that put me in the comments section for too long, and I decided it would be better to just make this a blog post. So this is part a public exhibition of this idea, and partly a response to a man who I believe to be not only confused, but backward. And since he came out of the gate with nothing but bait, I tried to make this sharp enough to cut through the hook. So here’s the comment:

Dear “Fuck your feelings” libertarians,
Here’s how much it turns people off: They’d rather live in an unfree world than in a world filled with assholes who value freedom but not empathy. Does that not tell you something about how much this approach won’t work? — Jeremy Cline

Let’s get to it.

Nobody gives a shit about assholes – Hillary is a criminal and Trump might as well be a jock on a shitty eighties TV show. Libertarians protest war, brutality, slavery, and all other forms of aggression, and you mean to tell me that people who want to remain under that system care an ounce about people being mean? Seriously?

They’re used to excusing PURE EVIL, and you think that mean words on the internet are the lynchpin in their statism? No. They aren’t. The lynchpin is their comfort with terrible things, and that is what must be crushed if they are to come around to the side of anything against the establishment. You can choose to do that compassionately, and that’s certainly viable, but don’t expect to be taken seriously if the entire wealth of anarchist thought bothers you because some of it isn’t nice.

Jill Stein is nice, and compassionate most places she talks, but people don’t want that. Get very used to that. People run to the government for help because they want someone who can make a strong show of force for their specific desires that have been handcrafted by elite men in suits in boardrooms who are much bigger assholes than any anarchist is here.

People like assholes. It’s why reality TV, where people constantly bitch and snipe and “throw shade” is so fucking popular, why talk radio shows are filled with the most nasty, vile, bigoted blowjob shit out there, and why, after all these years, people haven’t found sympathy from their fellow man in their time of need, but from a “higher power”, whether that be a god, a “vibration”, a government or some other such imaginary entity, calling the proverbial 9-11 every time they break a nail. Nobody gives a shit, so stop pretending that our being less mean will change that.

The only thing that will change it is a global paradigm shift away from collectivized and centralized – essentially, political – thinking, and toward personal responsibility. In the end, nicety can only get you so far, and only if you happen upon the right people who actually care, and won’t kill you, hurt you, or betray you, as soon as they see you. Those people are a minority, and most of them are already libertarians, whether they see it or not, because they are the sort of people that respect your boundaries pretty reasonably.

Those people aren’t your target audience. Those people are the fringe. Like we are. Expecting the majority to do what the fringe does is foolish, and since we fight dangerous people – people who would try to control our speech, and much more – it’s also dangerous. Libertarianism could cut like a knife through established statist dogma were it to become popular, and ideas like yours seem to dull the blade. I’d understand saying that there’s a time and a place for being mean, and that a harsh approach should have an off switch, and be used with discretion, not impunity, but to say simply “don’t” is childish, as is the rest of your comments here. Let me give you an example:

I know you don’t like the way these points Feel to hear.. but you need to process it anyway.

Okay. I’m’a let you finish, but you could’ve just said “fuck your feelings”, and it would’ve been shorter. You just contradicted yourself. Never go full contradiction.

Because the only way that feelings of others don’t matter is if people don’t matter. And if people don’t matter, neither do your rights. People are fragile. If you’re mean to them, they will avoid the unpleasant sensation. No amount of stomping your feet and screaming TOLERATE ME will change that. No amount of ignoring your Effect to focus on your Intent will change that. It’s a reasonable response of someone’s freedom to disassociate to avoid unpleasant behavior. I am not advocating for saccharin falsity and hollow Hallmark nicety. I’m saying when you intentionally make a point of not valuing others, of giving them no reason to believe you’re the kind of people they’d want to associate with in the first place, it is unreasonable to then act shocked that they don’t want to adopt your values and world view and associate with people who act like that.

Here’s your first mistake. People don’t equal feelings. If your argument rests on false equivalency, you’re going to have a bad time. “People are fragile.” Mistake two – some people are fragile. Other people are harder than you are, and others are harder than them still. Don’t make generalizations. You aren’t good at it. “If you’re mean to them, they will avoid the unpleasant sensation.” Like they do when one candidate is mean, so they run to the other, until they’re mean? No – people are used to this. “No amount of stomping your feet and screaming TOLERATE ME will change that.” That’s precisely what you’re doing. You want a movement of tolerant libertarians – tolerant of all forms of statism, so much so that they put feelings above facts because the facts are unpleasant.

And here lies the cruxes of your errors: “It’s a reasonable response of someone’s freedom to disassociate to avoid unpleasant behavior.” Thought policing is unpleasant to me – want to disassociate now? “…people who act like that.” Not All Anarchists Are Like That. The fact that they’ll avoid the ideas anyway because the one person they may have interacted with was mean means precisely that they don’t care about who’s in the movement. And again, people aren’t feelings. Not valuing someone’s feelings doesn’t mean you don’t value them. This conflation could make me look like a real asshole if I disagreed with you though. Almost like that was your intention – to emotionally load your statements. Nah… that’s crazy.

And here’s the thing. I like what you post – it’s almost always a dodge from logic, objectivity, or proof wrapped in emotional appeal, but you mean it. You’re sincere. And heartfelt. Just not very genuine. Because if your response is, as it almost always seems to be, to demand that others look within themselves for the answers, while being unwilling to see that the fault may be in someone else than the person you’re talking to, you won’t look far enough within yourself to find that you may be wrong about feelings entirely.

I have a device I regularly employ in my thinking, and it’s simple… everything I think could be dead wrong, and nothing is absolutely provable. This means that if I feel something, or think it, I will second guess it. And third guess it. And take as many guesses as it takes to be satisfied with it, and admit it immediately if someone proves me wrong. I understand most people won’t do that, and that basing a movement on that is a fool’s errand. But I won’t ignore its usefulness to me. That’s what you really want to do. You want to change people, and instead of meeting them individually where they are, you’d rather classify them all into a “fragile” set, and guard their feelings like china, no matter whether they need it or not, on the likely vain hope that they see things the way you see them.

Well, I don’t. And while I’m generally the kind of person to try to understand where someone is coming from, and not automatically snap at them, I refuse to see anarchism turn into a glorified affirmations group – an ex-statist safe space. People should be challenged, pushed, and provoked, and it’s exactly this kind of emotional approach to dialogue that has people fused in place to the statist paradigm. But if you want to be a marching director, keeping people in lockstep down feels road, don’t be surprised when a horde of irrational people leave your “movement” when the state gives them more free stuff. Oh, and be sure to watch the Presidential debates. It follows an algorithm, see…

People do equal feelings. In the sense that they are as much a natural human psychological aspect and brain function as doing math or processing language, and I think it’s okay to use and acknowledge the function of the whole brain. It’s not some alien thing. It’s not people and feelings, anymore than it’s people and language comprehension. Without the former, there is no latter. And they’re as valid and real a part of human psychology as logic. Acknowledging and utilizing one’s knowledge of the full spectrum of human psychology is a good thing, I think.
People matter. That’s all I was trying to get at. I’m not calling for a “statist safe space”. I’m saying you can challenge ideas without attacking people. That’s all. You don’t have to make “a safe place for statists” to make it clear you oppose their values, but want to salvage their lives. I was always perfectly willing to talk, to be wrong. And maybe I am, about a lot of things. Often! But not people mattering. I’m not calling for “nice” to say that. Just human empathy. You don’t have to agree with what someone thinks or feels to try to understand it. It’s not thinking or feeling. They’re not fucking either/or. You can both condemn an ideology on moral and intellectual grounds, and try to relate to and understand a person in order to connect so as to better move them from where they are. No, it’s not a positive obligation or something you owe others. I was never constructing a case for obligation. Just saying why I think.. people matter.

I’m responding to the whole convo, as it is on Facebook. Viewers can check that, if they’d like context.

—

If you want to question whether or not I read a thread, get a look at the thread first. I used a comment that you made later in it for the last half of the piece, so obviously,I didn’t write it based on your first statements. I read everything. I still disagree.

People matter, but people don’t equal feelings. Their feelings might not matter at all. And before talking about you specifically, I looked over your profile and found many more posts than just this thread, wherein you discussed (I believe) how dehumanizing it was to be asked for proof. Like they weren’t a “genuine person”, and they’d been “hurt” beyond their capacity for discussion – on your terms. And I never once quoted you on something you didn’t say, liar. You, however, did. I didn’t say a “safe space for statists” – I said a “safe space for ex statists”. For honesty’s sake, maybe respond to the whole article.

And speaking of wholes, feelings are not the whole brain, and your equation of feelings to people is laughably wrong. Math doesn’t give a shit who you love, and your ability to process math has very little to do with what you feel. And while we’re here, fuck you for implying that anyone with an emotional disconnection disorder is less human than you. “I didn’t say that!” I hear you protest – but you did. “People do equal feelings… Without the former, there is no latter.” Some of the most apathetic people I’ve known have been infinitely more valuable than the “humans” you want to claim are the only existent ones.

And then you want to belittle and reduce everyone else’s argument by saying stupid shit like “[W]atch the angry kids come out of the woodwork.” I’m angry, but by arguments are far from childish, and your failure to recognize that implies you don’t give an actual shit about conversation, no matter how many whinges you offgas on your timeline. I wouldn’t mind being one of the ones to “salvage their lives”, but I don’t need to acknowledge how a statist feels to be right about statism.

Logic is not uniquely a part of human psychology, as you arrogantly put it; it is a set of concepts and metaconcepts that exist even were the earth to detonate, flinging the shitstained viscera of mankind and the rest of life into the universe for other planets to absorb. In fact, some of the basic logical tenets do dehumanize an argument. They take it, and say, “your emotions don’t matter – don’t appeal to them; who you’re talking to doesn’t matter – attack the argument, and not them; arguments need to be both valid and true – don’t try to distract that by just saying what feels right on a partial examination.” Logic is not a human concept. It’s a set of concepts that exist, independent of all creatures and things, that those creatures can understand, if they so choose. Ah, but that would be “[p]eople turning conversations into court cases…”, so we can’t stand having objective ideas – no! A standard of evidence is a concept reserved and available only to the gilded halls of the state.

So let’s cut the crap.

If you can’t defend a statement, don’t make it, and if you want to claim that it dehumanizes you for me to say it, then fine, I’ll dehumanize everyone. For honesty’s sake. Some people matter, others don’t; some feelings matter, others don’t. Stop conflating them; you’re wrong. Which could’ve already been established, were you to have accurately responded to my article, and not throw several more statements of bullshit at the wall, hoping they stick. They didn’t. Fuck your feelings.

Glad to hear you read some of my stuff. I’ve read and watched a bit of yours. Kudos on the firearm advocacy. We also apparently have very similar tastes in literature. I first started reading Adams as a kid. If you enjoyed the Hitchhiker’s Guide, you should check out the Dirk Gently books. And the Virtue of Selfishness is a book I’ve bought a dozen times to give to different people. Even if Rand had her contradictions, she puts so much succinctly there that helped crystallize things I had already thought – but perhaps not in so conscious terms.
So much emotional language from someone discussing how feelings don’t matter. The reason I say I don’t like conversation to be a court case, is I have no interest in it being adversarial. I’m not your enemy for disagreeing with you on something. I have no anger towards you.. though I do have a tendency to get too snarky for my own good. Hell, I don’t even dislike you. It seems we actually agree on many at least core concepts. Let all ideas be tested in the agora of public scrutiny. You’ll not find anyone else as willing to discuss with you- whether you contend it’s otherwise or not. But we can skip to the point…
Exactly. Logic is concepts. Concepts don’t exist without minds. It absolutely is uniquely an aspect of consciousness. It’s not something that exists irrespective of people in the realm of Platonic Ideals. Reality is not your concepts. It’s itself. Every thought and measurement, ideas and analysis about it comes after the fact, and it exists with or without your logic or analysis. Reality is what exists irrespective of consciousness, whether you think so or not. Concepts are completely the creation of consciousness, as a response to what is after the fact. The map can be as accurate as you please. The map is not the terrain itself. Just an abstract, a representation. I absolutely believe that objective reality exists. But I don’t believe anyone’s ideas can perfectly or wholly sum it, no. We can have ideas that vary in degrees of accuracy. We can have views and axioms which best predict actual outcomes. But even math is a Helpful Fiction. (Numberphile has a few interesting videos on this idea, but I won’t spam you with links). People in every philosophical walk across the spectrum, even those of opposing ideas regularly say “It’s just logic, bro. 1 +1. It’s so obvious.” But it only makes sense to talk of one as an amount of something else. One is not itself something, other than a conceptually tool for measurement. In real life, there are no perfect circles. There are no perfectly straight lines. And there are no two subatomically identical units of any real physical thing, 1 and 1. In real life, there is variance, nuance. Which is lost in these summations. That is really what I want to avoid. If we are PURELY logical with no consideration of psychology, of human interaction, of real world living beyond the confines of our abstracts, we fuzz out all those little things that make the difference between theory and real life application, and we are more prone to deliver a thing without nuance or exception.
Logic has as many shortcomings as feelings as a tool of measurement. Both paint an incomplete picture on their own.
Premise 1. All purple people are purple.
Premise 2. All purple people are people.
Conclusion: Therefore, some people are purple.
Logically follows Aristotelian internal consistency. Still generally false. False things are logical all the time. That’s why we can tell when a fictional story world makes more or less sense, or contradicts itself.
In the real world, things are both A and not A all the time, and very few things exist as pure binaries. Is the atom here or there? And if you want to know how easy it is to manipulate statistical “facts”, good god. There’s entire books on it, and I won’t patronize you with quotes, because you seem bright enough to get the point. Here’s my point: Not that we are ALL logic or NO logic, or ALL emotion or NO emotion. There is no one without emotion. There is no one without thoughts and concepts. How far they can form, measure, control, express, develop them. That varies. But most people have and psychologically depend on the aspects of both brain hemispheres. When I say people are feelings, that’s what I mean. Inasmuch as people are thoughts. In that there is no one without those.
I do agree some feelings don’t matter, just like I’d agree some thoughts don’t matter. If someone thought they had the right to emotionally blackmail with disingenuous expressions the goal of which was honestly just to control and censor others, as I said in the thread, obviously I oppose and disagree with that. We’ve never disagreed that crybullies can sit on a dick. I’ve never wanted to stop you from talking or being heard. If someone wanted to aggress against others, to initiate the use or threat of force where none would otherwise exist, they have decided themselves that they thought the risk of their own lives was worth it. In my eyes, they have said themselves “I think in short term gains” and I won’t cry if that person dies. So, I suppose we agree there as well. Tyrants lives, for instance, don’t matter.

“Even if Rand had her contradictions, she puts so much succinctly … So much emotional language from someone discussing how feelings don’t matter.”

Please provide a single quote where Rand ever said or implied that feelings don’t matter. It was because she understood how important feelings are that she emphasized the necessity of reason. She never said feelings don’t matter.